EchelonDivision Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust and sentenced to three years in prison. He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989."I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court. But he insisted: "In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis."Should Holocaust Denial Be Illegal? What does everyone think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 There is something inheritely wrong with jailing someone for having an opinion no matter how wrong and distasteful it is. He should be judged by society, humiliated and then ignored. But jailed, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen B Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 What do we think of this?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stmThere's been a lot of debate recently about freedom of expression concerning the Muhammed cartoons' date=' Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza. Is it right for someone to go to jail for expressing an opinion?Personally, I'm glad this fascist sympathiser is no longer able to attend right-wing rallies and peddle his lies and corrupt political agenda, but I can't help but feel uneasy about the precedent it sets. Surely, in a free country we all have a right to express our opinions, regardless of the fact they may be based on prejudice and/or mistaken information?[/quote']I agree with what Dave says. My heart says i dont mind the bastard being thrown in jail but my head says it leaves this kind of rule open to great abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think it's ludicrous, I'm not sure who thought to make the guy a martyr to certain groups for giving his opinion, however misguided. All we've done is go down the same route that lead to the holocaust in the first place. The guy may be misguided and wrong but he wasnt using what he said in a way to incite as far as I can see, so I dont see why it's something that should lead to jail. Freedom of speech is important, though I also believe we should be carefull of incitement to harm others, but this leads me to worry about where Europe is going. It's interesting that when a government lies about something that is fact - UK with it's WMD 'debate', nothing happens, even though thousands die, yet one historian makes an ill advised comment on a misguided belief and he ends up in prison. CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth_groover Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Yes, the world is fucked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 David Irving was a former pupil of my school and used to come back to speak every year. He was a good speaker but his research, though careful, was clearly abandoned when it came to his conclusions. But I agree that imprisoning someone for an opinion, albeit one used to support his extreme right-wing cause, but equally one derived from historical study, is hardly appropriate in a democratic society.And what's more, the Nazis exterminated not only Jews, but also the disabled, homosexuals, mentally ill people, anyone who wasn't their idea of perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 You cannot have limitless free speech, the right to free speech is not the right to cause blatant offence and spread hatred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 In Germany and Austria, holocaust denial was prohibited at the end of the second world war. This was to prevent a further Nazi uprising and keep order.Seeing as that was 61 years ago, still exercising this law is ridiculous. It should be thrown out with all the other draconian legislation kept by European Countries. David Ike publicly announced he was the "Son of God" on national television. Should he be jailed for heresy??Let people say what they like. As I said before, no-one has the right not to be offended. As long as Slander and Lible are not be committed. If you don't like it, IGNORE IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If I was Muslim, I'd be asking why laws like this are used against someone expressing his opinion 16 years ago which he has since taken back, yet not against a national newspaper printing one of the greatest offences possible against my religion. That's not exactly a helpful message to be sending out especially right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If I was Muslim' date=' I'd be asking why laws like this are used against someone expressing his opinion 16 years ago which he has since taken back, yet not against a national newspaper printing one of the greatest offences possible against my religion. That's not exactly a helpful message to be sending out especially right now.[/quote']how can a law against holocaust denial be applied to cartoons of muhammed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 In Germany and Austria' date=' holocaust denial was prohibited at the end of the second world war. This was to prevent a further Nazi uprising and keep order.Seeing as that was 61 years ago, still exercising this law is ridiculous. It should be thrown out with all the other draconian legislation kept by European Countries. David Ike publicly announced he was the "Son of God" on national television. Should he be jailed for heresy??Let people say what they like. As I said before, no-one has the right not to be offended. As long as Slander and Lible are not be committed. If you don't like it, IGNORE IT![/quote']No I believe that jailing him was the correct thing to do, the slaughter of 6,000,000 jews by the nazis should be highlighted in every history book accross the globe and anyone who would deny it is either mad or defending the action of Hitler and his nazi party.As for a comparison with david ike......give me a break! for a start Jews exist!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 how can a law against holocaust denial be applied to cartoons of muhammed? laws like these...... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 David Ike publicly announced he was the "Son of God" on national television. Should he be jailed for heresy??Where's the Scots or English law against heresy again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 No I believe that jailing him was the correct thing to do' date=' the slaughter of 6,000,000 jews by the nazis should be highlighted in every history book accross the globe and anyone who would deny it is either mad or defending the action of Hitler and his nazi party.As for a comparison with david ike......give me a break! for a start Jews exist!!![/quote']Defending Nazi's: Supressing freedom of speech was how Nazism started.My point with David Ike was simply to emphasise that he pissed off a lot of Christians by making such a statement. He was never punished for this, and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Defending Nazi's: Supressing freedom of speech was how Nazism started.Nonsense.My point with David Ike was simply to emphasise that he pissed off a lot of Christians by making such a statement. He was never punished for this' date=' and rightly so.[/quote']There's a fundamental difference between saying something which borders upon insanity, and which subsequently offends a section of a particular religion (most Christians probably laughed it off for the nonsense that it was) and denying the largest single genocidal activity in modern history, which happens to offend an entire religion.Unless you seriously think some nutjob celebrity claiming to be the son of god is comparable to saying that the holocaust did not occur.I also agree with Frosty that the inaction over the Mohammed cartoons has been lamentable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Nonsense.There's a fundamental difference between saying something which borders upon insanity' date=' and which subsequently offends a section of a particular religion (most Christians probably laughed it off for the nonsense that it was) and denying the largest single genocidal activity in modern history, which happens to offend an entire religion.Unless you seriously think some nutjob celebrity claiming to be the son of god is comparable to saying that the holocaust did not occur.I also agree with Frosty that the inaction over the Mohammed cartoons has been lamentable.[/quote']OK, so that David Ike thing doesn't compare, but you're missing the point! These people need help, not jail sentences! (The Presidents of Egypt and Iran both deny the holocaust took place, also.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Where's the Scots or English law against heresy again?There isn't one, thats my point!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 There isn't one' date=' thats my point!![/quote']It's not a very good point then.Heresy in law would be tantamount to a theocracy.Holocaust denial is entirely disanalogous to heresy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 It's not a very good point then.Heresy in law would be tantamount to a theocracy.Holocaust denial is entirely disanalogous to heresy.Yeah, fair enough. Both were statements made with the intent to offend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I also agree with Frosty that the inaction over the Mohammed cartoons has been lamentable.That's not my point.There should have been action alright, but that action is not denying anyone's right to print or say what they want. If you disagree with someone's point of view, it is not your right to shut them up, it is your responsibility to counter their argument. No-one ever won a debate by gagging their opponent. The appropriate reaction after the offending cartoons were published would have been a full scale publicity campaign as to why they were so offensive.The appropriate reaction to what the 'historian' said should have been an educational campaign illustrating exactly why he was wrong. The objective should be to make him look a fool to everyone, not make him a martyr to those who still don't know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 That's not my point.There should have been action alright' date=' but that action is not denying anyone's right to print or say what they want. If you disagree with someone's point of view, it is not your right to shut them up, it is your responsibility to counter their argument. No-one ever won a debate by gagging their opponent. The appropriate reaction after the offending cartoons were published would have been a full scale publicity campaign as to why they were so offensive.The appropriate reaction to what the 'historian' said should have been an educational campaign illustrating exactly why he was wrong. The objective should be to make him look a fool to everyone, not make him a martyr to those who still don't know better.[/quote']OK, consider me shot down in flames then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threeornothing Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 PC shit....everyone denies an atrocity worse than the holocaust which occurs EVERY DAY when they tuck into their meat.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 PC shit....everyone denies an atrocity worse than the holocaust which occurs EVERY DAY when they tuck into their meat....o_O seriously, you cannot be that stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen B Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 PC shit....everyone denies an atrocity worse than the holocaust which occurs EVERY DAY when they tuck into their meat....Does every single person eat meat every day. I think not. I'm sure you'll be glad to know you sound like Morrissey on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tam o' Shantie Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 = bad= good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.